Bush Rival Breaks Syria Boycott

Good for Pelosi.

Someone needs to step in and do something, the Bush admin's idea of a foreign policy is "we're going to bomb you if you don't do what we want" and their idea of diplomacy is "we won't talk to you unless you do what we want first."

Sometimes a slightly subtler approach is called for

Amazing. I just wonder how big of a deal this would be to the posters on the right had Bush not said anything. My guess is you wouldn't care if he didn't care. Way to think for yourselves.

As djohnsto77 pointed out there is nothing wrong with the visit and I know he doesn't like her either. I think right now we need all the diplomacy in that part of the world that we can get. You can't solve anything by blowing everything up. What does it hurt to talk?

She is pretending to be the president. She should be home, on US soil, tkaing care of issues here and walking through the worst neighborhoods in America. She is not a head of state, nor a diplomat who is trained in foriegn policy. It also makes our country look weak. The Middle East right now is laughing that "cowboy Bush" cannot control a woman, when we beat ares!!!

That's funny. I guess it was pretty stupid to put Condi in the position of Secretary of State then, huh? She is a woman (I think) and also black. However, I don't think that is the problem.

From what I saw on CNN the Serian officials seemed pleased to see Pelosi and treated her with respect. I guess the Middle East is laughing at them too.

Pelosi is showing that at least some politicians in the US have goodwill.

I tell you I have never seen a president so full of himself that he doesn't care if the rest of the nation goes down with him and his ineffectual foreign policies.

This is what happen when you get to grow up in a privilege environment where everything is given to you.

Rice can not do anything in her job due to the fact that she has to abide by Bushes policies.

Polos may have done something that extend beyond her status but what is Bush going to do? arrest her for dealing with the enemy and make her an enemy of the state.

And for Pelosi been working for Israel well . . .they are refered as strong and personal because her son-In-law is Jewish.

So is not denying that Israel influences in our congress are stronger that the ones we the American people hold on our elected politicians

[edit on 4-4-2007 by marg6043]

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Things are heating up over the Syrian visit, but also between Bush and democrats over war spending...

Bush: 'Unacceptable' bill threatens troops

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush warned Congress Tuesday that failing to send him an acceptable Iraq war funding bill soon is irresponsible and will threaten U.S. military equipment and training.

The president's stern warnings during a White House news conference targeted Democratic leaders controlling Capitol Hill who have included timetables for troop withdrawals in their funding legislation.

"If Congress fails to pass a bill that I can sign by mid-April, the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on equipment, equipment repair and quality of life initiatives for our Guard and Reserve forces," Bush said.

Visit the source link for the full article, and Video.

I can't help but wonder about the timing of Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria, and the debate over war spending.

All seems a bit too convenient, no?

[edit on 3-4-2007 by UM_Gazz]

From what I understand, the Prez wouldn't sign the bill because of all the pork attached to it. The media won't tell you that though.

This is not a woman should not go there thing, so please do not think that. Condi could go but there must be a reason. I mean, god forbid, what if she was killed? A big what if but where would that leave us?

Originally posted by esdad71
This is not a woman should not go there thing, so please do not think that. Condi could go but there must be a reason.

Let's ask the obvious questions then, Is it in part that a Woman is in Syria that is more bothersome to some ultra-conservatives, than the fact that it is a liberal democrat opposed to a Republican administration???

Originally posted by grover
I stand by that centurian. Your assertions are not how our government works either...It is all a matter of checks and balances. The parties may growl and posture at each other but there is no way a member of congress would or could make such a trip without the consent (even if grudging) of the White House or not brief them after.

When push comes to shove they work together.

Exactly, and thanks!

Somehow, the pelosi apologists on this thread seem to have missed or ignored the key point I made a little earlier, so I'll repeat it:

Would clinton have wanted Bob Dole to go to Kosovo and tell them that the Republicans had a better plan? Yeah, right. BTW, Don't we still have troops in Kosovo and how many years has it been? Where's the demo outrage and gnashing of teeth on that? Let's cut the funding on that operation, too!

So, exactly how would clinton and the dems have reacted to my hypothetical Bob Dole "peace mission"? That's right, they'd be screaming!

And please notice that no Republican ever tried an "end run" such as pelosi is doing. No, the Republicans respected the checks and balances of government when clinton and other dems were in office.


[edit on 4/4/2007 by centurion1211]

Publically they would yes but behind the scenes Dole would have been given instructions like any high level diplomat and would be debriefed afterwards. The outrage and huff and puff are for the partisian consumption only.

[edit on 4-4-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by centurion1211

Would clinton have wanted Bob Dole to go to Kosovo and tell them that the Republicans had a better plan? Yeah, right. BTW, Don't we still have troops in Kosovo and how many years has it been? Where's the demo outrage and gnashing of teeth on that? Let's cut the funding on that operation, too!

So, exactly how would clinton and the dems have reacted to my hypothetical Bob Dole "peace mission"? That's right, they'd be screaming!

Well if Clinton had started two wars and threatened another without using any diplomacy, your right we would be screaming but it would be for Clinton to try talking first. There wouldn't be any need for Bob to go over there for the same that no one else has ever had to, because unlike this administration, diplomacy is usually first coarse of action.

And as for the troops still in Kosovo, it is the Pentagon who wants to cut their pay, which is wrong.

www.foxnews.com...

“gnashing of teeth”? I love the way you try to portray the democrats like they were republicans.

Just saw this on Drudge ...

article about Pelosi lying ...

The Prime Minister's Office issued a rare "clarification" Wednesday that, in gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's statement in Damascus that she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks.

and this:

Olmert, the statement clarified, told Pelosi that Syria's sincerity about a genuine peace with Israel would be judged by its willingness to "cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hizbullah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran."

See, this is exactly the reason most thinking people are against pelosi trying to usurp the powers of the executive branch by "negotiating" on behalf of the U.S. with foreign countries. She can't even get her stories straight. And if a meeting doesn't turn out the way she wants, she makes something up about the discussions to fit her agenda.

Very

BTW, before anyone disses this because of the Jerusalem Post link, perhaps a similar story from the Washington Post would suffice?

Washinton Post Story

HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.

[edit on 4/5/2007 by centurion1211]

Well if that's true that she said Israel was ready to talk and they didn't tell her that, that is a huge mistake on her part and was wrong. I will agree with that.

However, the reason most of us thought the visit was a good idea hasn't changed. This country needs better dialog with the countries that we have disputes with. If not it looks more and more like we just want to pick a fight.

I just think Pelosi really overstepped her boundaries as a member of Congress by going to a country that is not on the "friendliest" terms with the US and talking to that countries leaders. Doesn't matter if she was a man or that she's a woman!

Article Two of the United States Constitution

Clause 2: Treaties; Senior-level and Judicial nominations

The President may exercise several powers with the advice and consent of the Senate.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, ...

Who knows Polis's actual conversations she had with the leader of Syria, I'm sure in some way she thought of herself as an Ambassador and was trying to see what she could do to ease tensions between the two countries. And this is where I believe she overstepped her boundaries.

The US (or any other country) just can't have any high member of their government, traveling all over the world talking to other world leaders at their own whim!

I believe, if this was allowed, the world would be in an even bigger mess than it is in now!

Foreign policy Law of the United States

Scope of Presidential Powers

An executive agreement can only be negotiated and entered into through the president's authority (1) in foreign policy, (2) as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, or (3) from a prior act of Congress. For instance, it is as commander-in-chief that the President negotiates and enters into status of forces agreements (SOFAs), which govern the treatment and disposition of U.S. forces stationed in other nations.

Agreements beyond these competencies must have the approval of Congress (for congressional-executive agreements) or the Senate (for treaties).